Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Davis 104442Anders; consecutive sentence; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). An independent review of the record demonstrates that there are no nonfrivolous issues to argue in this case that involved the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences.Celebrezze 9/21/2017
State v. Ladson 104642Insufficient evidence; manifest weight; circumstantial evidence; parallel inferences; felony murder; participating in a criminal gang; admission of evidence; abuse of discretion; App.R. 16(A)(7); R.C. 2941.25; joinder; ineffective assistance of counsel; juror misconduct; allied offenses; consecutive sentences. The convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion when admitting evidence regarding the defendant's gang affiliation at trial. The defendant's conviction of receiving stolen property did not violate R.C. 2941.25 based on an earlier conviction in another case, and there was no error in joining several counts into one case for trial under Crim.R. 13. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to remove a juror based on unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. And finally, the defendant's convictions were not for allied offenses and there was no error with respect to imposing the sentences to be consecutively served.Gallagher 9/21/2017
State v. Hayes 104818Sentence; conviction; attempted murder; felonious assault; weapons; disability; intimidation of a witness; unlawful threat; shooter; knowingly; eyewitness; circumstantial; infer; credibility; R.C. 2929.11; purposes; recidivism; seriousness; R.C. 2929.12; consecutive; findings; contrary to law; clearly and convincingly; record. Defendant's attempted murder, felonious assault, having weapons while under disability, and intimidation of a witness convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. The trial court imposed a prison term within the applicable statutory range and considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12. Defendant's sentence was not contrary to law. The trial court made the necessary findings for imposing consecutive sentences.Gallagher 9/21/2017
State v. Westley 104847Endangering children, plain error, sufficient evidence, expert testimony. The state failed to offer sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction for endangering children where it failed to offer expert testimony to a reasonable degree of medical certainty establishing that nonaccidental child abuse occurred in this instance.Gallagher 9/21/2017
State v. Hayes 105048Insufficient evidence; passing bad checks; grand theft; R.C. 2913.11; statutory presumption; ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice; allied offenses; R.C. 2941.25. Defendant's convictions for passing bad checks are based on sufficient evidence based on the statutory presumption under R.C. 2913.11(C)(2) that the defendant issued checks knowing they would be dishonored when she failed to pay the victim the amount of the checks returned for insufficient funds; trial counsel was not ineffective because the defendant could not demonstrate prejudice from the failure to call a witness who would have bolstered the defendant's trial testimony; and three convictions for passing bad checks and one for grand theft stemmed from separate acts, and therefore, the offenses are not allied.Gallagher 9/21/2017
State v. Rogers 105130Ineffective assistance of counsel; mental illness; failure to request mitigation report; sentencing; present condition. Appellant failed to show trial counsel was ineffective because there is no evidence in the record of a contemporaneous mental illness that would have factored into the trial court's sentencing determination.Celebrezze 9/21/2017
State v. Allison 105212Consecutive sentence; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); contrary to law; R.C. 2953.08; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; merger; allied offenses; waiver. The trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences and appellant's sentence is not contrary to law. Appellant waived the issue of allied offenses, and thus the trial court did not err by failing to merge appellant's convictions for sentencing purposes.Celebrezze 9/21/2017
Davie v. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. 105261Vexatious litigator; vexatious conduct; R.C. 2323.52; res judicata; summary judgment. Vexatious litigator counterclaim was not barred by res judicata. Trial court erred in considering lawsuit filed by party's wife in determining whether he was a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52. Because reasonable minds could disagree as to whether party habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds engaged in vexatious conduct; trial court erred in granting motion for summary judgment in favor of counterclaim plaintiff on vexatious litigator counterclaim.Gallagher 9/21/2017
State v. Jones 105282Crim.R. 11(C), guilty plea, postrelease control, R.C. 2967.28, mandatory, failure to notify. Trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C) when accepting defendant's guilty plea. Trial court erred when imposing postrelease control, telling defendant he faced "up to" five years, instead of informing him that the it was a mandatory five-year term of postrelease control under R.C. 2967.28.Boyle 9/21/2017
In re J.T. 105311 & 105316Journal entry, clerical mistake, nunc pro tunc, juvenile, having a weapon while under disability, firearm specification, plain error, double jeopardy, R.C. 2152.17(A), R.C. 2929.14(B), equal protection, rational basis, R.C. 2152.17(F), ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court failed to properly journalize the proceedings at the juvenile's dispositional hearing. Even though R.C. 2929.14(B) does not permit an adult offender to receive a firearm specification for a charge of having a weapon while under disability, R.C. 2152.17(A) does not violate a juvenile offender's double-jeopardy or equal-protection rights by allowing a firearm specification to enhance a having-a-weapon-under-disability charge in the juvenile system.Boyle 9/21/2017
Kljun v. Admin., Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. 105340Law of the case; declaratory judgment; injunctive relief. Judgment affirmed. The mandate set forth by this court in the previous appeal ordered the trial court to enter judgment, as a matter of law, in favor of plaintiffs. Defendants were aware of both types of relief sought by the plaintiffs and acknowledged the same in its motion to dismiss. Defendants should have pursued reconsideration with this court or sought further review with the Ohio Supreme Court. Defendants chose not to do so. The law of the case doctrine now precludes any modification to the trial court's judgment.Kilbane 9/21/2017
Bailey v. Vaughn 105412Settlement; mutual mistake. Court did not err in enforcing settlement agreement and by rejecting argument that mutual mistake existed in settlement agreement. Party's agreement to give up "any further claim for bodily injury" included damages for injuries not yet diagnosed at the time of the settlement. Party's refusal to cash settlement check and attempt to return the check were ineffective because the settlement became final once the check was tendered in payment of settlement regardless of whether or not the check was later presented for payment.Stewart 9/21/2017
Bank of Am. v. Allen 105473Foreclosure; Confirmation of Judicial Sale; Caption; Appraisal; 24 C.F.R. 203.604. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in confirming judicial foreclosure sale where assignee was substituted after filing of action yet caption listed original plaintiff bank, appraisal was less than auditor's tax appraisal, and there were mediation and 24 C.F.R. requires "face-to-face" meetings before foreclosure.Blackmon 9/21/2017
State ex rel. Cuyahoga Cty. v. Jones Lang Lasalle Great Lakes Co. 104157On reconsideration, County law department lacks standing to bring R.C. 309.12 claim on behalf of the County for recovery of public funds where only the county prosecutor is authorized to bring such claims. Trial court did not err in finding that the County should have discovered the claims on July 29, 2008, when the Cleveland Plain Dealer published online articles reporting public corruption and the execution of a search warrant on a county commissioner, and linking to a copy of the search warrant.Pietrykowski 9/21/2017
State v. Ramos 103596App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, R.C. 2903.01(B) predicate offense, failure to file App.R. 26(A) application for reconsideration. The appellant, through his App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, has failed to establish that his appellate counsel was ineffective upon appeal. The state was not required to prove that the predicate offense of kidnapping was the proximate cause of death of the victim in order to obtain a conviction for the offense of aggravated murder pursuant to R.C. 2903.01(B). In addition, appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to file an App.R. 26(A) application for reconsideration. The filing of an application for reconsideration would not have resulted in any revision of this court's appellate judgment. Thus, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the conduct of his appellate counsel.Stewart 9/18/2017